CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and maintained that the Plaintiff's costs and 65% of the Defendant's costs be paid out of the Deceased's estate because (i) the proceedings involved two issues apportioned 65% to probate and 35% to beneficial ownership and it was just to order one holistic costs regime,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3338
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 August 2025
Case Number
HCAP6/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil – Probate and Property Dispute / Decision on Costs (summons Dated 13 June 2025)
Outcome
The Plaintiff's summons dated 13 June 2025 is dismissed; the costs order nisi in the Judgment is maintained.
Legal Topics
Validity of Will, Beneficial Ownership, Costs Apportionment, Litigation Conduct, Testamentary Capacity
Source Language
en
Probate Trusts and Property Civil Procedure Costs Validity of Will Beneficial Ownership Costs Apportionment Litigation Conduct +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil – Probate and Property Dispute / Decision on Costs (summons Dated 13 June 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2019 Will was valid (Probate Issue)
  2. 2 Beneficial ownership of the Property (Beneficial Ownership Issue)
  3. 3 Whether to vary the costs order nisi made in the main judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and maintained that the Plaintiff's costs and 65% of the Defendant's costs be paid out of the Deceased's estate because (i) the proceedings involved two issues apportioned 65% to probate and 35% to beneficial ownership and it was just to order one holistic costs regime, (ii) the Defendant had reasonable grounds to challenge the 2019 Will given the Deceased's and Plaintiff's conduct and medical/circumstantial doubts, and (iii) the Plaintiff's dishonest litigation conduct warranted disapproval and affected apportionment; accordingly the existing order was fair and should stand.

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff's summons dated 13 June 2025 is dismissed; the costs order nisi in the Judgment is maintained.

Orders

  • The earlier costs order nisi is maintained: the Plaintiff's costs and 65% of the Defendant's costs shall be paid out of the Deceased's estate to be taxed on a party-to-party basis if not agreed (certificate for one counsel).
  • Costs should follow the event generally.